News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A Designer's War on Misleading Parking Signs by daxelrod on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:38AM (#8923508)
There are unfortunately more dimensions:

- When standing is allowed

- Different sets of rules for commercial or permitted vehicles

They could post two of the proposed signs, one for commercial and one for noncommercial vehicles, for example, but standing rules are going to be harder to add to that design without making it more confusing.

Re:A Designer's War on Misleading Parking Signs by jmilloy on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:49AM (#8923567)
Having a single (different) sign for each audience makes a lot more sense than a different sign for each rule or timeslot. That is, commercial vehicles and pedestrians can each have their own sign, and only when necessary.

Then at least I know that I'm looking at all of the information that pertains to me, and that this information isn't contradictory.

Re:A Designer's War on Misleading Parking Signs by sukilot on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @10:58AM (#8923606)
"Standing" is for vehicles, not pedestrians. It means "idling engine".
Re:A Designer's War on Misleading Parking Signs by jmilloy on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @12:35PM (#8924236)
Yeah I wondered about that, and guessed wrong. I'm used to seeing the words "idling" or "stopping" for cars and "loitering" for people, and never "standing".

I suppose if you want to put non-parking rules (e.g. idling rules) on a parking sign, and then complain that the parking sign is too complicated, then that's a different problem.

Re:A Designer's War on Misleading Parking Signs by mod on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @11:33AM (#8923810)
I don't think he missed that, I think he used the wrong word to refer to non-commercial vehicles.